Confidential Résumé Writing

Keeping your résumé real

The hardest portion for those struggling with their outdated résumés is delivering a concise message. Every résumé sends a message, whether intended or not. As I write this, I am looking at an upcoming project that arrived via email. The unfocused résumé appeared to be little more than a self-styled obituary. Prior to sending the two-page obit, the client groused to me over the phone about the lack of responses, and then briefly made reference to the jobseeker’s age.

It took all of five seconds to spot several deficiencies. Collectively, they revealed why the jobseeker was encountering difficulty. The blasé format dated back to the early 1980s, and followed a job-application layout. Nothing stood out or grabbed the reader—other than the individual’s name and the small type. So, what message was this jobseeker communicating?

If called upon to screen hundreds of outdated résumés, how much time would you devote to scrutinizing unfocused material? Would you even exert the effort to analyze the material to figure out want a jobseeker wanted to do? If you were busy, would you roll your eyes, toss the obits aside and move on?

The résumé in question lacked sophistication. It was neither dynamic nor interactive. It communicated the message that this was a vintage jobseeker. My mission would be to bring it to life and strive to keep it real and relevant. While such a task sounds easy, it requires some measure of skill and client support.

The one element that never ceases to amaze is the amount of umbrage jobseekers have toward change. Seriously. Employers are desperate for qualified employees, but you have to sell them on hiring you. Regardless of your career interest, all hiring decisions come down to one of three realistic elements:

Can you a) make them money, b) save them money or c) solve their problems?

If you can demonstrate one of those potential priorities, someone wants to hire you. All your résumé has to do is convey that message. If it does not, you are wasting their time and yours. (That’s today’s résumé reality.)

The days of grabbing warm young bodies off the street have past. Yes, age can be a factor. Age is not the sole criteria for which applicants get themselves eliminated. Living and thinking in the past, however, can accomplishes that. Those who live in the past are enviably doomed to reside there.

For older jobseekers who find themselves living in the past, moving forward amounts to a scary journey. The options amount to learning what works in the job market, or finding someone who does. Both options require exercising due diligence, lest you fall victim to self-ignorance or unscrupulous operators.

The lines of separation between employment success and failure are remarkably thin. How one thinks and sees oneself often reflects itself in the individual’s résumé. Making repeated references to outdated information and technology sends a clear obituary message to potential employers. Keep your résumé fresh, relevant and real is where the rubber meets the road.

Balancing a job search with the social media dichotomy

The world of job hunting amounts to a sneaky balancing act. There exist a number of jobseekers who proudly announce, “I do not believe in social media,” as if it were integrated into one’s belief system. Social media is, of course, a reality, and not subject to debate like UFOs or Greek mythology.

Below superficial beliefs, there exists an ongoing dichotomy. Some people just do not want to be found. Job hunters, however, do not have the luxury of having it both ways. When you are job hunting, you want employers to find you: You just don’t want your employer finding out. That’s the dichotomy.

How does one put him/herself out there on the job market without attracting unwanted attention?

A plethora of social media is available just for the asking. Twitter, Facebook and LinkedIn rank among the more popular. I often caution clients not to Tweet or respond to Tweets while in job-search mode. Your oh-so clever Tweets may not be viewed in the context you intended.

Facebook has its own set of drawbacks. It was intended as a social connection tool for close friends and relatives. Today, Facebook has mushroomed into a cacophony of friends of strangers and shirttail relatives for which you may be clueless as to who they are. Your reputation can be tarnished by their indiscreet actions (postings)—regarded as guilt through association.

If you have a Facebook account, and you are an active jobseeker, it is time to limit your exposure. From the top navigation bar where your name appears, toward the right of that line you will find the image of a padlock. Pressing the padlock opens the dropdown menu. The first option: Who can see my stuff? It is time for jobseekers to adjust that access, or suspend that account. At the minimum, remove questionable posts and photos, including references to your political and religious preferences.

LinkedIn is different. Every serious jobseeker needs to have a publicly visible account. The lack of an account raises more questions than having this footprint. The two biggest dangers are alerting your employer and having an account that materially conflicts with other information. If your LinkedIn page says one thing and your résumé or credit history states otherwise, that amounts to a serious red flag discrepancy.

Updating and perfecting your LinkedIn account while gainfully employed represents an ongoing hazard. Each time you adjust your information, LinkedIn assumes you want the world to know what you’re up to. To avoid tipping off your employer that you are actively on the job market, simply turn off the network notification feature.

This easy fix is often overlooked by novice LinkedIn users. To turn-off having LinkedIn announcing your every update, sign in to the account. To the right of Home on the navigation line is Profile. Use the dropdown feature and select Edit Profile. Toward the bottom right corner of the Edit page you will see, Notify your network. If Yes appears, switch it to No.

For jobseekers to assume they are not leaving a social footprint amounts to extreme naiveté. Fear over Big Brother prying into their lives pales in comparison to what Corporate America can accomplish. They have easy access to credit information, court documents and proceedings, voting info, medical records and driving history. If they need to know more, that too is available.

While we pretend to live in a participatory democracy, it is merely an illusion, masquerading as a false truth. (How is that for doublespeak?) Today, we live in a well-represented plutocracy. Like those who don’t believe in social media, it is reality whether we openly admit it or not.

The Imaginary Jobseekers

Would you believe one-in-20 jobseekers (roughly 5%) use professional résumé writers to avoid

seeking new employment? Odd to say the least, but true. I refer to this group as the imaginary jobseekers, as their job search is conducted without any sense of urgency.

Naturally, this begs the question: Why would anyone invest money to create a résumé without an urge to use it? While this defies conventional wisdom, there exists a rationale for pursuing such a course. Rather than use the résumé as an interviewing tool, it becomes their emotional crutch.

Outwardly, this type of jobseeker feels a dire need to project the appearance of seeking employment. A spouse, parent or friends may be under the impression the individual is actively seeking new employment. In some cases, these concerned friends and relatives might even be fronting the expense.

The motives behind imaginary job hunting vary. Whatever the motive, their immediate need amounts to keep up appearances. Many imaginary jobseeker will resort to extraordinary maneuvers in order to maintain this façade.

There is a difference between going through the charades like a Kabuki drama, versus taking decisive action. As in everything else in life, it is not what someone tells others, but what the individual actually does. In this regard, inactions continue to speak louder than words.

The following represent some symptoms that identify an imaginary jobseeker.

1. Rather than the job search being undertaken as a mission, task or objective, it becomes an open-ended project with no scheduled completion date.

2. The individual will delay applying for new employment, or will postpone applying until the job opportunity closes.

3. The individual will fiddle endlessly with the résumé (and/or cover, and/or references) —claiming that applying for employment cannot be pursued until the résumé / cover / references, etcetera, are perfected. (Ah, the perfect rationalization.)

4. The individual has a morbid fear of interviewing. Such individuals will resort to anything including outright denial to avoid triggering a panic attack.

5. The individual has resigned his or her fate. Not being successful on the first few go-arounds, the lack of self-confidence has quietly taken charge of the job search.

How does one avoid becoming an imaginary jobseeker? There is no cookie-cutter, quick-fix solution. We know that procrastinating a week or two won’t be catastrophic. As weeks turn into months, the onus begins shifting. After several months lapse with no progress in sight, the above distractions emerge. The only one being fooled is the would-be jobseeker.

One suggested remedy is to take decisive action. Eliminate obstacles as they arise and remain focused. Move the job search forward with a sense of urgency, if only by inches. If the job search slips into stall mode, double-down on moving things forward. Worry not over making mistakes: Correct them as you endeavour to forge ahead.

What résumé scanning can and cannot analyze

Jobseekers should be aware of the Applicant Tracking System (commonly known by its acronym ATS). Rumors abound as to how an employer can electronically scan your résumé or app, and in nanoseconds have an algorithm pluck the most desirable, qualified candidates.

For the average jobseeker, it remains a bewilderment—akin to black-box technology. In reality, ATS is little more than advanced algebra, where your words are reduced to binary true-or-false values such as 1 if true, and 0 if false.

To accommodate variables such as and, or and not functions, a subarea of algebra known as Boolean math is used. Unlike basic algebra, which reduces everything to addition and multiplication, Boolean math can perform those additional operations. Another way of viewing this is algebra solves numerical relationships, whereas Boolean math calculates logical relationships.

So, how does this ATS software apply to jobseekers? What are its limitations in ascertaining logical relationships? Will it discern the jobseeker’s sincerity or authenticity?

In laymen terms, the software’s algorithm looks for keywords as those words relate to a posted job opening. When matches are found, it returns a true value in the form of a binary number—usually one. When no match is found, it returns a zero to indicate false or no.

To provide a simplified example, suppose a major employer wants to hire a Staff Accountant with more than two years’ experience. Hundreds will apply. Manually sorting through mounds of résumés (or online applications) poses a time-consuming challenge. The ad for the position will contain most of the keywords, but not all of them!

It is that not portion where the counter-intuitiveness comes into play. Too often, jobseekers will attempt to game the system by copying and pasting large portions of the advertised text into their résumés or the online application to fool the software into generating a ‘perfect’ match.

Today, most major employers use an online application process, and then request the applicant to attach a résumé. This method saves enormous time. The online application automatically parcels the information into major categories such as (a) contact information, (b) skillsets, (c) employers, (d) experience, and (e) education.

In the above Staff Accountant example, the software merely has to look for relevant keywords. The most likely keywords will include budget(s), forecast(s), report(s) or reporting, variance or financial analysis, fixed asset(s), depreciation and/or amortization, reconciliation, journal entry, etcetera.

The software then looks for experience with anything equal to (=) or greater than (>) two years, and ascertain the relevancy of the college degree, in this case probably accounting or finance. As previously indicated, if the items exist, the system’s algorithm returns a binary number to indicate true or yes. When the system cannot locate these items, the algorithm returns a zero (0), indicating false or no.

The software might also scan to see if CPA appears after the applicant’s names, and tack on a bonus point to the assessment score. It might also assess the applicant’s zip code to determine potential socioeconomic standing. (Such statistical information is available from the US Census Bureau.)

This Boolean logic process can be applied to each critical item (or criteria), be that education, current or former employer(s), positions held, dates, job duties, related skillsets and so-on. The numbers easily add up, and applicants are sorted and ranked according to accumulated point values. The closest matches return the better scores.

The greatest value of ATS software lies in its ability to scan text for experience relevancy. At first blush, it might appear that it would be ever so clever to include mounds of precise details—aka added minutia. The software, however, searches only keywords relevant to the position. Redundancies and added fillers, strung together with prepositions, rarely prove beneficial.

Applicants, whose careers lie outside preset parameters, will not pass muster. The non-relevant keywords will be skipped over. The jobseeker’s positions or employment often relate to something else. (There exist endless numbers of jobseekers who routinely apply for anything and everything—qualifications notwithstanding. Most companies view them as time wasters.)

Interviewers rarely see the online application. Once the ATS has assessed the online apps the system can either print the top 10 or 12 attached résumés, or electronically forward them to the interviewer. Now, instead of culling through hundreds or thousands of résumés, the interviewer(s) have a manageable handful.

At this juncture, the interviewer can assess what the ATS could not—the general feel and feng shui of the candidate’s presentation. Some applicants can have all the right keywords, and not be in-sync with hidden criteria. In some cases, the applicant simply does not appear to be authentic.

The moment an experienced interviewer spots irregularities, the gig is up. Those applicants are often deemed outliers or prevaricators, and their résumés are inevitably tossed aside. The elements of authenticity, sincerity and chemistry are where ATS software comes up short.

This is where the counterintuitive aspect comes into play. While ATS can efficiently identify the tangibles, it cannot gauge or calculate subjective attributes that might make one candidate more desirable over other equally qualified applicants.

Until a reliable subjective-profile algorithm can be integrated into the ATS application process, the need for personal interviews will continue. Solve that equation and you will be worth a million bucks!

Job changing success versus being lost in Yonkers

When one works for others (pick your poison), two things routinely occur: either you enjoy what you do, or you find yourself going through the motions.

When you have a passion for what you do, the days pass quickly. Your performance usually reflects the quality of your efforts.

For those whose life’s mission amounts to earning a steady paycheck, changing employment qualifies as a reluctant chore. Work performance rarely exceeds adequate and most workdays drag. For these jobseekers, changing employment usually amounts to falling off the side of building into a dark alley, while being lost in Yonkers.

With few exceptions, the job searching poses a challenge.† For most, it is damn-hard work. Anytime one undertakes a formidable task, the individual’s stress level sores. When that stress persists, other side effects surface. (Some jobseekers become downright irrational. Others become physically ill. A few might qualify for therapy.)

Recently, a stressed-out jobseeker contacted me. He informed me he had written several versions of résumé, and then proceeded to educate me about the résumé prep process. I was curious as to how many résumés he had prepared. Upon inquiring about his employment status, he revealed he had been unemployed more than a year.

A smile of incredulity came upon me: Being lectured by an unsuccessful jobseeker had a surrealistic effect, leaving the impression that one of us maybe divorced from reality. Nonetheless, I listened with empathy as he provided instructions on how he wanted me to proceed in creating a functional résumé.

The caller nor his situation was unique. Such inquiries arrive weekly. Each needs help, but many do not know how to obtain assistance. In the alternative, they double-down and recycle previously failed efforts that might somehow return different results.

The gestalt of job-hunting success is greater than its individual parts. Those elements often include a written strategy, networking, perfecting interviewing skills, a decent résumé (or vita), eating habits and exercise, correcting credit reports and maintaining quality references. ¨

The ultimate challenge, however, comes down to appearing authentic—both on the résumé and in the interview. Being able to persevere to that decisive moment amounts to successfully integrating the entire process.

Most jobseekers entertain ambitious aspirations, yet hold a mixed understanding of what is required to reach their employment objective. Somewhere between one’s aspirations and the ability to marshal one’s collective resources lies true job-changing success.

† Those who acquire their employment status through marriage, friendship or inheritance qualify as exceptions.

¨ Each of these topics has been addressed in other articles.

To visit James' Linkedin page, click here.

To visit James' website, click here.

Avoiding Pinocchio résumés

One problem upper-management jobseekers encounter is maintaining their objectivity. Lack of neutrality distorts one’s judgment. Those same executives are often cool-headed in other matters, but when it comes to their résumés, the rulebook gets flushed down the toilet.

That begs the question: Does such a résumé rulebook exist? In the large schema—yes, though it is constantly evolving, and not something etched in papaya. The book of résumé etiquette might be entitled: The dos and don’ts of résumé frivolity.

Having worked with thousands of jobseekers, a few caveats have been learned—some by accident, but more the old fashion way—trial and error.[1] In those early days, I accepted clients at face value. I believed whatever the jobseeker told me. Over time, it became apparent that while most did not outright lie, many overstated things, which drew into question their veracity.

Roughly speaking, it took about 300 résumé preparations before it became glaringly obvious what consistently worked, and what puffery did not. While I was eager to pursue methods that worked, it became equally apparent that some clients entertained other priorities. Those priorities trumped my best intentions.

Here are a few Pinocchio dichotomies I regularly encounter. If I encounter these, it’s a damn-sure bet employers confront them as well.

Many jobseekers believe that overly charged verbiage succeeds.[2] They spotted it in Zoe’s résumés and gosh-by-golly they become hell-bent on having identical verbiage appear in their material. (Time is wasted on those resorting to befuddled logic.)

The problem with using charged verbiage comes down to believability. Here is where ambitious intentions clash with reality. What if the employer thinks the jobseekers is just another Pinocchio? What value is that? How does that work to the individual’s advantage?

^›

Another popular ploy among jobseekers involves the urge to explain things. Somehow, the notion that if they explain their situation, any transgression associated with it will be (a) deeply appreciated and (b) fully accepted as fact by the potential employer.

Oh, if that were true, turtles would gallop like horses and butterflies would sing like canaries. In reality, this amounts to magical thinking, of course. The moment you resort to “But I need to explain,”—you lose. In the world of reality, explanations and rationalizations are for Pinocchio to recite.

^›

Many fret over the depth of résumé content. (Some resort to obsessing.) To satisfy this thirst (or obsession), they infuse the technique known as stringing prepositions.[3] Why use an eight-word sentence when a long-winded, 35-word sentence, strung together with prepositions will appear more impressive. Some sentences leave readers thinking, --Huh? And say what?

The notion that stringing endless prepositions will convey a greater depth of knowledge or experience is grammatical rubbish. Concise sentences work better than expository blither. Reader comprehension also improves. (This reality is often wasted on those with opposing mindset.)

^›

At the forefront of jobseekers’ minds are keywords, whom many confuse with buzzwords.[4] The appearance of keywords is vital in résumé effectiveness. They constitute the foundation for selecting candidates—especially when the résumé is pre-screened and processed via an Applicant Tracking System (ATS).

Keywords are not what most jobseekers think they are. They tend to be simple things like contact information, level and type of education, current and previous positions, type of industry experience, and skillsets relevant to a particular industry or occupation.

Whenever applicants come up short in these basics, they lose points and ranking. In turn, this lowers their prospects of being contacted. Jobseekers tend to learn this lesson the hard way when attempting to switch careers.

›^

As for using buzzwords, think of a swarm of angry bees buzzing around their nest. Except for beekeepers and bears, the noise—annoys. If you have limited exposure to résumés, the buzzing will not be overpowering, nerve-wracking or self-evident. Start reading reams and stacks of résumés and the endless buzzing drives you nuts.

It should come as no surprise that the Pinocchio résumés are cluttered with buzzwords. Some will use prepositions to string the buzzwords together. While depth of experience should speak for itself, they fear being passed over for not including me-to verbiage.

›

The ultimate dichotomy is hiring an experienced writer, and then not trusting the individual’s judgment and recommendations. Chances run high that individual will get more right by accident than a novice will by intentional design.

Footnotes

[1] Five top errors learned were, 1: The résumé is an ad—not a job app, 2: Lack of focus in an attempt to cover everything, 3: Content relevancy is more important than length, 4: Clean layouts perform better than busy or cluttered ones, and 5: In many cases, less can be more.

[2] Worthless superlatives such as “all, always, never, every, almost, very, only” rank among the highest abused, followed by “successfully, completely, totally and entirely.” Infusing charged verbiage has little-to-no influence on sharp-minded decision makers who regularly see such usage.

[3] As a former college English instructor, I can attest that there are roughly 150 prepositions in English. In case freshman English has been forgotten, the common prepositions are to, at, on, with, of, for, over, from, within, by and aside. Sentences containing more than three propositions should be considered excessive.

[4] The use of buzzwords dates back to the mid-1940s. Usage is considered an attempt to impress those less educated, and those with less intellect. Seven of the most commonly overused résumé buzzwords include motivated, passionate, creative, driven, extensive, track record, and expert.

The balance of the top ten is experience, responsible and organization. The usage of these buzzwords however, is often unavoidable. With limited options, it is difficult to address experience and responsibilities without referencing those words.

Strategy for New Employment

Do not underestimate the importance of having a game plan. The mind acts in peculiar ways. One of those peculiarities is that whatever the conscious mind tells the subconscious, the subconscious tends to push you in that direction. In that regard, the subconscious is amoral, it does not evaluate decisions—it merely finds ways to execute them.

One needs to be mindful what messages become embedded into the subconscious. (Here is where that timeless saying, be careful of what you ask for, applies.)

To bring intangible thoughts into the realm of reality, they have to transition into something tangible. When thoughts remain intangible, the mind tends to nest them into nondescript categories like things to worry about. A written strategy or detailed checklist is tangible. You can see it, re-read it, physically amend or consciously improve it.

By way of illustration, we will use the unplanned job-hunting method. Off-times, this involves consciously fretting, worrying and obsessing over how to proceed. As the days and weeks slip away, little gets accomplished. The conscious mind has convinced the subconscious to pursue this unproductive course.

Outwardly, the jobseeker’s behaviors manifest themselves in terms of becoming visibly irritable, frustrated and annoyed. None of these outward behaviors has anything to do with conducting a productive job search. The subconscious has sent the jobseeker in the direction the conscious mind instructed it to do.

A written game-plan strategy activates the conscious mind to pursue a proactive course. Worries and other concerns now shift their focus to the written plan. Previous nondescript priorities become reallocated. In constructing your strategy, keep the following in mind.

First, there will be competition. Most of that competition will perform similar to amateurs. However, 20% will be serious jobseekers that will pose a formidable challenge. One must be mentally prepared for that to rank among the contenders.

Second, the serious competition will have a strategy. This might include having a list of potential employers who could use their skillsets. They will compile a comprehensive to-do checklist. One needs to match them tit-for-tat.

Third, the serious competition will practice for interviews, and will not relying on amateur method of faking it or happenstance. They follow well-rehearsed interviewing strategies.

Fourth, these players educate themselves on the organization they intent to interview with. They won’t be caught off-guard when asked, “What do you know about our operation?”

Fifth, they show up dress for the occasion—dress for success, if you will. In short, they look and act the part for which they are applying. Is your interviewing wardrobe ready?

Sixth, they carry with them whatever they need to the event, which often includes an interview checklist. No “I’ll get back to you with that,” or “I didn’t bring that.”

Seventh, they preprogram themselves to offer no excuses or lame woe-is-me scenarios. (Employers are worn weary hearing endless excuses disguised as plausible rationale.) [1]

The preceding represents an overview of things to consider in designing your written strategy. The realistic to-do checklist of mandatory chores can be expansive. Five of the often-overlooked items include:

1. Checking all three of your credit reports (Experian, Equifax and Transunion), and correcting even the smallest errors and inconsistency. Failure to do so has cost many a jobseeker prized opportunities. (Employers will not forewarn you of this, but when your résumé states one thing, and your credit reports states something else, be prepared to suffer the consequences.)

2. Checking whatever appears on publicly available documents—especially court and driving records. These are more difficult to correct than credit reports. Surprisingly, many legal encounters and traffic infractions are often ignored. What is not ignored is lying about it. That is the disqualifying portion. (Claiming ignorance is another disqualifier.)

3. Networking represents a time consuming chore. Most do not take it seriously, and some only superficially dabble at it. If you are seriously planning to be found or discovered, you have to be out there actively promoting yourself and your skillsets.

4. Gathering quality references are seriously undervalued. As a result, most jobseekers slap together a hodgepodge of easy-to-locate names, or assemble a list of friends. Both of these options are losing strategies. Pretend you are the employer who wants to hire qualified applicants. Now what type of references would you assemble?

5. Creating well-focused material. A résumé cluttered with off-topic, non-relevant fillers is viewed by employers as a time waster. Those that know what it is they want to accomplish and tailor their presentation accordingly get the interviews.

The instant you write down a job-hunting strategy is the moment it becomes real. Now you can look at, read it, study it, perfect it and check-off your progress as you proceed. The jobseeker who methodically inches forward makes more progress than the multitudes of jobseekers who shuffle their valuable efforts back-and-forth waiting to be discovered.

[1] Here is the link to a short related article on this topic, entitled Think Like Employer, click here.

Gaming the Applicant Tracking System

A growing number of jobseekers are aware of the Applicant Tracking Systems, often referred to by its acronym ATS. The academic community has used the automated system for years, but its popularity with mainstream employers continues to rise.

The tracking system is not without flaws. Efforts continue to reduce imperfections—especially by those attempting to game the software. Employers realized that applicants were copying their advertised job descriptions into their résumés to achieve a perfect match. Today, those maneuvers are less effective.

In non-technical terms, here is how ATS appears to perform. The automated process involves a five-step process, and mimics artificial intelligence (AI) behavior. The goal is to reduce the hours required to screen myriad applicants efficiently, and identify those presumed most qualified. The last element leans more toward alchemy.

1. You enter the website designed to accept and electronically process applications and résumés. Applicants are asked to create an account with a user ID and password. The system puts you through a detailed application, and requires you to identify a specific opening. Once completed, applicants are directed to an “attachment” section.

· The attachment section is where you upload your cleverly designed résumé, and sometimes an e-cover, along with other attachments if requested.

2. Once uploaded, the ATS runs the résumé through a parser process. To accomplish this, the parser software literally strips away the entire layout and fancy format. What remains is plain-Jane text, sans formatting. All the colorful lines, elaborate artwork and other creative elements get removed.

3. The parser then sorts the data into major categories. The common ones include:

(a) A contact information section, i.e., phone, email, zip code etcetera.

(b) Major Skillsets as they relate to the opening.

(c) Experience, with emphasis on job titles, employers and employment length.

(d) Education, including degrees, certifications and licensures.

Depending on preprogrammed preferences, additional categories can be included when the employer has deemed it essential. Foreign languages, publications, research and professional memberships can be isolated and taken into consideration for added points.

ATS can identify and assess your travel time, the quality of your employers, positions held, date ranges, degree(s) and assess core experience. It can grab your zip code, and calculate your socioeconomic status based on US Census data. Each element is quantified by assigning the item a point value.

4. Next, the software attempts to analyze keywords. Semantics aside, this is where the IA portion encounters difficulty. Applicants with well-concealed flaws can slip through. (These often do not surface until background checks are conducted.) At the opposite extreme, creative ingenuity often gets short changed as well.

· Applicants attempt to game the system overload their material with buzzwords in an effort to outwit AI. Newer versions of ATS appear to be savvy to these antics, and the AI algorism attempts to spot and flag such behavior. If red flagged, the applicant loses points.

This requires the AI software to perform counter-intuitive analysis. You could state, for example, that you are a creative genius. Will the software accept it as a statement of fact? Probably not. A list of US Patents would carry more weight.

5. Once the analysis finishes, the system totals the raw subsets statistics, and assigns an overall value—usually number with a decimal. (10.0, 9.5, 8.2 etc.) The applicants are then ranked from highest on down. The ATS can be set to select a predetermined quantity, such as the top ten applicants.

How can you beat such a clever system? Broadly speaking, you can’t. ATS performs well in eliminating blatantly unqualified applications. The system can easily catch illogical discrepancies, as well as assess the non-relevant. Short employment stints and glaring gaps can be tagged as red-flag items.

ATS gets preprogrammed to look for keywords, euphemistically dubbed buzzwords. There is a difference: The context in which words appear can shift contextual meanings. The system’s ability to spot nuances poses an ongoing challenge. Over usage of keywords can be counterproductive when the system is programmed to track such behavior.

While the parser portion of the software performs efficiently, ATS appears to come up short in analyzing and assessing creativity. So far, that portion has been left for interviewers to assess, and this is where the best candidates get shortchanged.

My approach is to play to the algorithm’s strengths. To accomplish that, I use clean layouts that allow the parser software to perform better. Thought is given to items I know will be categorized: Those items are grouped accordingly.

I have also discovered that excessive verbiage—especially the removal of adverbs and qualifiers seems to improve applicant ranking. Items that can be identified as red flag issues are removed. What remains is a concise, factual presentation the parser portion can easily group and the AI portion more accurately assess.

Employer Job Speak

I created this Orwellian expression to address the disconnect between jobseekers and hiring decision makers. Job-hunting is a lot like learning a foreign language: A few grasp employer job speak right away, while others struggle. For the rest, it becomes a sojourn into linguistics fantasyland.

Suppose one day, you were suddenly plucked from your familiar surroundings, and abruptly transported into a foreign environment. You stop the first person, and ask for assistance. The individual smiles politely, shrug his shoulders, babbles something you do not comprehend, and walks away.

As this scenario repeats itself, you conclude you need to be more proactive. Beyond pointing and gesturing, your ability to communicate is limited. You are unable to speak in the language. Your options: Either learn the native language quickly, or find someone who can translate.

Now overlay that bizarre scenario with seeking employment. You suddenly find yourself in need of a new job. (Reasons vary.) Your familiar surroundings have been seriously disrupted. You are either upset, baffled or frustrated. Probably a combination of all three.

No one you encounter seems to appreciate your predicament, or the individual simply has his own problems, and unable to offer assistance. You feel you are getting the fast shuffle. Somewhere along this job-seeking continuum, you realize you need a translator—someone who can interpret what you can do into something an employer might understand.

We live in an Orwellian job market. Those who know employer speak get hired ten times faster than those who do not speak their vernacular. Oh-yes, there exists a communication barrier between most jobseekers and employers. When this occurs, it is not a Kumbaya experience.

Here are some of the disconnect dichotomies between what jobseekers want and how employers often decipher them.

· The jobseeker believes he/she needs to present his/her entire work history—even the irrelevant. Translation: How much of this do I have to suffer? Should I waste time analyzing this? (Usually, if they want an expanded version, they request it.)

· The jobseeker needs to pay bills with enough discretionary funds to enjoy life. Translation: Okay, I can solve your problem. Can you solve ours? If not—next!

· The jobseeker has a unique situation that needs to be explain. Translation: I do not have time for your unique problems, nor am I interested. I have my own to deal with.

· The jobseeker claims he/she can do anything. Translation: Where have I heard that before? How will this make us money, save us money, or solve our problem(s)? If you cannot do that, go bug someone else.

· The jobseeker feels a need to find a rewarding and fulfilling career. Translation: That’s nice to know, but why are you burdening me with this? Keep looking. Next.

To be sure, the list of translations can be expansive, but you get the idea. The message sent is not always translated as the jobseeker intended. Something inevitably gets lost in Yonkers. Wandering the windy and lonely streets to employment can get downright frustrating.

A decent translator (or résumé writer) should be able to bridge many communication gaps that coexist between ambitious jobseekers and what employers want to know. Rightly or otherwise, employers see their time as valuable. If that does not translate—you are wasting their time.

Employment Fits & Glitches

Have you ever listed all the things that can go wrong in a job search? Chances run high you have not. If you listed everything, you might have a royal fit, crawl back in bed and pull the covers over your head.

Résumé writers often catch heat for a wide assortment failed job searches. In most situations, those failed searches venture into areas beyond their control. What follows are a few job-search givens, some of which may surprise you.

The first 11 items are those employers can easily spot—usually during an initial flash read of the résumé. Flash reads rarely take more than 15 seconds. The remaining seven surface during an interview or crop up during cursory background checks.

1. Spotty record of employment: This is sometimes referred to as hopscotch employment, where the jobseeker appears to have bounced from one position to another like a Ping-Pong ball. Naturally, the jobseeker promotes himself as the Jack-Of-All-Trades.

2. Short periods of employment: Employers routinely scan employment durations. Job candidates who cannot hold employment for longer than a year are often viewed as unstable and/or unreliable. Those jobseekers routinely attempt to project a rock-solid image.

3. Unrecognizable employer(s): To camouflage bad employment, many jobseekers resort to declaring themselves consultants with fabricated or out-of-business companies that are next to impossible to trace. While some think this is a clever and original idea—it’s far from it.

4. Nondescript positions: Anytime an employer glances at a job title as says, “Say what?” the candidate falls into instant trouble. Esoteric titles unique to a specific organization often get dismissed because the recipient reader has no idea what the title means.

5. Lack of degree or lack of appropriate degree: Many positions require a degree as a matter of company policy. In some situations, a degree may be required as a matter of state laws. Either way, it becomes mission impossible to do an end-run around built-in restrictions.

· Certain senior-level positions require degrees from prestigious colleges and universities. Employers usually avoid advertising such hidden agenda.

6. Excessive commute: Not to belabor statistics, but it is a fact that job applicants who have to commute more than 45 minutes each way, will not stay. Experienced employers know this, and that statistical fact is always taken into consideration. (Relocation is a different matter.)

7. Lack of relevant experience: There exists an untold mass of jobseekers who respond to anything and everything—relevancy be damned. All major employers routinely encounter this phenomenon. Within nanoseconds, these résumés get discarded.

8. Vague or overly general résumé: Jobseekers who want to remain flexible resort to odd things; however, there is a tradeoff for that. Rather than speak in specifics, they resort to vagueness and generalities. Savvy employers won’t fall for it. –That’s the tradeoff.

9. Verbose and/or overly lengthy résumé: Most résumés—even technical ones—will range somewhere between one and three pages depending on several factors. Venture beyond three screens and readership interest plummets rapidly—as in falling off a cliff speed.

10. Internet unfriendly résumé: Just because someone sends something over the Internet, it does not de facto qualify as Internet friendly. While most employers will have sophisticated software, they rarely take the time to decode esoteric materials that do not open easily.

11. Unreadable or confusing résumé: Any halfway decent résumé writer should be able to spot this. For those who prepare their own material—not so much. We do not read our own material the same as strangers. In short, what may be clear to the creator may be unclear to others.

Other common glitches:

1. Bad credit history or credit history mismatch: Jobseekers simply forget to scrutinize their credit reports for correctable errors and inconsistencies. Caulk it up to being too busy, too time consuming or whatever, but most won’t walk the extra steps. Go ahead; curse the darkness.

2. Bad driving record: This is one of those HR chores routinely performed. Too many moving violations are strong indicates of irrational behavior patterns many employers prefer to avoid. If you drive with one of those special license plates, you are automatically in deep do-do.

3. Too many court appearances: Employers have access to public court documents. Make too many court appearances for whatever reason(s) can sink a hot candidate prospects. Most employers won’t read on if they noticed the individual suited a former employer.

4. Serious health issues: Legally, one’s health statue is supposed to be highly confidential. Ha! Go to work for an insurance company, sensitive government position or medical facility and you will discover a host of exceptions to the term confidentiality.

5. Physical appearance: Socially, and perhaps ethically, one’s physical appearance should not enter into the selection process, but it does. This goes double for high-profile positions and positions that reflect the corporate image. Do your best to look great.

6. LinkedIn profile: Most LinkedIn profiles qualify as bland to matter-of-fact. Employers often glance at them to gauge consistency, number of endorsements, and peek at how you appear in public. Leave your picture off, and they usually suspect the worst—an easy fix.

7. Terrible interviewing skills: Forget the statistics—they are exceptionally bad. Half of those who interview poorly honestly believe the opposite. The balance seems to know they interview poorly, but do nothing to correct the deficiency. Go figure.

Even a gorgeous résumé cannot remedy these last set of employment glitches. Best advice is to correct the deficiencies, and minimize the rest. As Clint Eastwood might quip, “Know your limitations and proceed from there.”

Subscribe to: Posts ( Atom )

Confidential Résumé Writing - Robert James

Navigation